Actually it would be cheaper to just let them in. Then when they are caught they receive a death sentence from the government. A lot cheaper than mines and tanks and more practical.

In an a white majority America, with White Americans making up over 95%. That policy would be easy to enforce but I think it'd be better to stop them at the border. The idea of a 20ft thick wall shrouding the entire southern border can and will work well.

That only happened because the guys protecting our border are severely undermanned. They are also insufficiently equipped to fight the invaders... We would need Abrams tanks, M16 Carbines, F-22 Raptors and AC-130 gunships to successfully stem the invasion.

According to attorney Bill Handel on KFI radio (AM Los Angeles), the military is forbidden from protecting the border from people who are unarmed and not wearing military uniforms because of the Posse Comitatus Act (he does NOT claim that this is a good thing).
The PCA forbids the military from acting as civilian law enforcement. It was put in place in 1878 in a reaction against reconstruction because many southerners hated having Union troops acting as local law enforcement. Handel claims that once an unarmed civilian crosses the border, he/she has all the constitutional rights of any other civilian defendant in the USA. He claims that only the border patrol and state national guard have the right to protect the border from civilian invasion (unless the state national guard is acting under federal control, in which case it would be forbidden).
He claims that even if you lined tanks all along the border, the tanks could not shoot at the civilian invaders unless we were at war with Mexico, or if marshall law was declared in the border zone.

Can anyone shed more light on the correctness or incorrectness of what Bill Handel claims?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Our LRS teams need training. The border is the perfect life fire training. We have the damn manpower, the equipment, and the ammo. All we would have needed is the damn greenlight to take the shots. Hell, put me a blackhawk and I'd do it for what I was paid in the army.

According to attorney Bill Handel on KFI radio (AM Los Angeles), the military is forbidden from protecting the border from people who are unarmed and not wearing military uniforms because of the Posse Comitatus Act (he does NOT claim that this is a good thing).
The PCA forbids the military from acting as civilian law enforcement. It was put in place in 1878 in a reaction against reconstruction because many southerners hated having Union troops acting as local law enforcement. Handel claims that once an unarmed civilian crosses the border, he/she has all the constitutional rights of any other civilian defendant in the USA. He claims that only the border patrol and state national guard have the right to protect the border from civilian invasion (unless the state national guard is acting under federal control, in which case it would be forbidden).
He claims that even if you lined tanks all along the border, the tanks could not shoot at the civilian invaders unless we were at war with Mexico, or if marshall law was declared in the border zone.

Can anyone shed more light on the correctness or incorrectness of what Bill Handel claims?

Are enemies don't follow the constitution neither should we. Our allegiance is to the white race, not the constitution.

That only happened because the guys protecting our border are severely undermanned. They are also insufficiently equipped to fight the invaders... We would need Abrams tanks, M16 Carbines, F-22 Raptors and AC-130 gunships to successfully stem the invasion.

Hell, just having a government that actually had an interest in upholding the laws concerning illegal immigration would be a great start.

According to attorney Bill Handel on KFI radio (AM Los Angeles), the military is forbidden from protecting the border from people who are unarmed and not wearing military uniforms because of the Posse Comitatus Act (he does NOT claim that this is a good thing).
The PCA forbids the military from acting as civilian law enforcement. It was put in place in 1878 in a reaction against reconstruction because many southerners hated having Union troops acting as local law enforcement. Handel claims that once an unarmed civilian crosses the border, he/she has all the constitutional rights of any other civilian defendant in the USA. He claims that only the border patrol and state national guard have the right to protect the border from civilian invasion (unless the state national guard is acting under federal control, in which case it would be forbidden).
He claims that even if you lined tanks all along the border, the tanks could not shoot at the civilian invaders unless we were at war with Mexico, or if marshall law was declared in the border zone.

Can anyone shed more light on the correctness or incorrectness of what Bill Handel claims?

I'm not sure about what Bill Handel said however from what I've read upon the act. I can see that it's very outdated but reasonable in cases, it only has to be brought up to date. Such as allowing the military to patrol national border, and capture illegal immigrants who are trying to cross the border illegally. I think if they are called to duty, they should be allowed to fire if the illegals resist or try to start a gunfight. I believe there were reports of Mexican military protecting drug shipments. If the Mexicans can have their military on their border then we should be able to because it is right now an unfair fight for us. The so-called superpower can't even protect her border, that is the biggest joke of the 21st century.

I'm not sure about what Bill Handel said however from what I've read upon the act. I can see that it's very outdated but reasonable in cases, it only has to be brought up to date. Such as allowing the military to patrol national border, and capture illegal immigrants who are trying to cross the border illegally. I think if they are called to duty, they should be allowed to fire if the illegals resist or try to start a gunfight. I believe there were reports of Mexican military protecting drug shipments. If the Mexicans can have their military on their border then we should be able to because it is right now an unfair fight for us. The so-called superpower can't even protect her border, that is the biggest joke of the 21st century.

Congress could call for a declared war and extend our(the military's) area of operation twenty miles into their country and establish that as a DMZ. Our military would be able to operate in that area without violating the constitution.

Hell, just having a government that actually had an interest in upholding the laws concerning illegal immigration would be a great start.

I believe that whenever the government becomes negligent in its duty or becomes oppressive then it is time to start a revolution. That power was vested to the people in the Constitution our founding fathers wrote. Remember that there can be only liberty if the government fears the people not vice versa.

Congress could call for a declared war and extend our(the military's) area of operation twenty miles into their country and establish that as a DMZ. Our military would be able to operate in that area without violating the constitution.

By our 111th Congress? If they even had the slightest interest of protecting our border, they would've done it long ago. They have not represented our interests for a very long time. The corruption in Washington D.C. runs deep, they put on a show every time they talk for all of us. Because that's all it is, a show.